Separate IMP.Restraint and PMI restraint classes #211
Description
Activity
@benmwebb I'm considering implementing more general forms of
TorqueRestraint,CylinderRestraint, andBiStableDistanceRestraintin C++ (just theIMP.Restraintfunctionality, seems pretty straightforward) and replacing the classes inIMP.pmi.restraints.basicwith PMI-style wrappers around these restraints. Usage and behavior should be the same. But I'm wondering if a different module, e.g.IMP.core, would be a better place for them or if you have a better idea.Sure, PMI is for high-level modeling, not a dumping ground for random classes. It sounds like
coreis a better place for these.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
In general, PMI restraints are wrappers around and not children of
IMP.Restraint. There are a few children ofIMP.Restraintwhich are not PMI restraints (they do not implement, e.g.get_output()). However, two classes,TorqueRestraintandCylinderRestraint, inheritIMP.Restraintbut implement PMI restraint methods. In the interest of having a unified PMI restraint base class, a pureIMP.Restraintversion of these should be implemented and then wrapped as with other PMI restraint classes.